1

08

- 08 40

- cv S h e ffi e ld v . S h e riff o

f R o c k la n d C o u n ty S h e riff D e p a rtm e n t et a l. UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 

### SU MM AR

Y O RD ER

R U LI NGS BY S UM M ARY ORDE R DO NOT HAVE PR E CE DE NT I AL E FF E CT . CI T AT I ON TO A S UM M ARY OR D E R F I L E D ON OR A F T E R J A N U A R Y 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E R M I T T E D A N D I S G OV E R N E D B Y F E D E R A L R U L E OF A PPELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L RUL E 3 2 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D OC U M E N T F I L E D WI T H T HI S C OU R T , A P A R T Y M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR AN E L E CT RONI C DAT ABAS E ( W I T H T HE NO T AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A P ART Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O R D ER M U ST SERV E A C O PY O F I T O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. 1 At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 2 Daniel Patric k Moy nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, 3 on the 22 day

of September , two thousand and ten. nd 4 5 PRES ENT: 6 7 P IE R R E N

. LE V A L, 8 P E T E R

W

. H A LL, 9 DEB RA ANN L I VI NGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges

. 11

_______________________________________________ 12 13 MAL I

NDA SHEF FI EL D, 14 15 Plaintif f-Appellant , 16 17 v. 08-0840-c v 18 19 SHERI FF OF T HE ROCKLAND COUN TY SHERI FF DEPARTMENT, COUNTY O F 20 ROCKL AND, CHI EF WI L L I AM CL ARK, CAPTAI N J OSEPH CONJ URA, CAPTAI N J OHN 21 L I SKA, SERGEANT J . GENTI L L O, 22 23 Defendants-A ppellees

. 24

______________________________________________ 25 26 FOR PLAI

NTI FF -APPEL L ANT: W YS TAN M. A C K ER MAN , E l i z a b e thS l at e r

M a s s e y, 27 Rob ins on & Col e L L P, H art fo rd , Co nn e c tic ut. 28 29 F OR

DE F EN DA

NT S- APP EL L EE S: R OB E R T B. W EI S S MAN , Sa re tsk y Katz D ra no ff & Gl a ss 30 L L P, New Yor k, New Y ork.2 1 Appea l from a judg ment of the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of New 2 York (K ara s, J. ; Fox, M.J. ). 3 UPON DUE CONSI DERATI ON, it i s h ere by ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and D ECREED 4 that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF FI RMED. 5 Plaintiff-Appellant Malinda Shef field ap p eals fr om a J anuar y 9, 2008 order

of the United 6 States District Court for the Southern District of New Y ork (Ka

ras, J. ) adopting the October 2, 2007 7 repor

t and re commendation of Ma g istrate Judge Ma rk D. Fox, which re commended that the motion 8 to dismi ss Sheffield’s amended c o m p l ai nt filed by Def endants-A

ppellees Sher iff of the Rockland 9 County

Sheriff D epar

tment (“RCSD”), County of Rockla nd (“County”), Chief Wil liam Clark, 10 Captain J oseph Conjura, Captain John L iska, and Serg eant J. Gentillo (j o i n tly “appe llees”) be 11 g ra

nte d on c oll ate ra l e sto pp e l g ro un ds . We a ssume the pa rt ie s’ fa mil iari ty wi th t he un de rl yingfa c ts, 12 proce dural history , and the issues pre sented on a ppeal. 13 1. Ba ckg round and A pplicable L aw 14 In brief, Shef field’s e mploy

ment at RCSD was te rm i n at ed i n Marc h 2006 following the 15 instit ution of disciplinary proce eding s ag ainst her f

or filinga fa lse worke rs’ compensation claim; the 16 proce eding s wer e taken to a rbitration, and the a

rbitrator r ecommende d the termination. Following 17 this, S heff

ield filed an a ction pr o s e in Ne w Y or k St ate Sup re me Court

a g a ins t th e She ri ff

of RCSD 18 and the County

allegi ngthat the disciplinary proce eding s were reta liatory and asse rting libel and 19 Tit le VI Iclaims. The Title VI Iclaim involved the alleg ation that defe ndants broug ht disciplinary 2 0 pr oc e e din g s a g a i n s tS h e f f i e l d b e c a u s e o f h e r r a c e an d

th atd e f e n d an t s p r a c t i c e d

“ m i n o r ity 21 dis c ri min atio n in pr a c tic e tow ard s r e c ru iti ng , h i r i n g , a d v a n c e m e nt , d i s c i p l i n e , t e r

m i n a t i o n a n d h o s til e 22 work environment” in “ an obvious pattern of discrimination.” In response to de fe n d an t s ’ m otionSheffield c halleng es only the dismissal of her Title VI Iclaims. Any challeng e to the 1 dismiss al of a

ny other c laim has there fore been a bandoned. Norton v. Sam’s Club , 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998). 3 1 to dismi ss, Sheffield soug ht to discontinue the action, statingthat the “supe rior for um” of fe dera l 2 dis tr ic t c ourt

wo uld “ pr op e rl y

a dd re ss [h e r] f

e de ra l e mpl oy

me nt d isc ri min ati on c omp la int in 3 j u ri sdiction, damag es and greater a war d.” See N.Y. C.P.L .R. § 3217(b) (r elatingto voluntary 4 discon tinua

nc e by le ave of c ourt ). In M arc h 2 00 7, the state c ourt dis mis se d Sh e ff

ie ld’ s su it i n it s 5 entirety

. See Sheffield v. Sheriff of the Rockland County Sheriff Dep’ t , No. 42 11 /06 (N .Y . Su p. Ct. 6 Mar. 30, 2007) . Sheffield did not appe al this dismi ssal. 7 Be fore the state c ourt rende red its dec ision, S heff ield, ag ain pr o s e , filed the pre sent ac tion 8 in the United States District Court f or the Southern District of Ne w York. The amende d complaint 9 asser

ts that the disciplinary char g es broug ht a g ainst Sheffield wer e “f alse, ba seless and e rrone ous”; 10 that th e arb itr ator e xce e de d h is a

uth or ity ; th at a

pp e lle e s’ c on du c t w a s “ in r e ta liatio n a g a ins t” 11 Sheffield a

nd “discriminatory with r espec t to [S heff ield’s] ra ce and color” ; and that appe llees we re 12 a c tin gsim ila

rl y wi th re sp e c t to oth e r “ Af ri c an A me ri c an Co rr e c tio na l O ff ic e rs sti ll e mpl oye d w ith 13 [R CSD] .” Attac hed to the complaint wa s Sheffield’s c orre spondence with the Equal Employ ment 14 Opportunity

Commi ssion (“EEOC”) , in which Sheffield made va rious alleg ations of discrimination 15 a g a ins t th e a

pp e lle e s. On Oc tob e r 2, 200 7, Ma g ist rate Judg e F ox re c omm e nd e d g ra nti nga pp e lle e s’ 16 motion to di smiss on the basis of collater al estoppel, a nd on J anuar

y 9, 2008 J udg e Ka

ras a dopted 17 this recommendation. 18 On

a pp e a l, S he ff

ie ld c on te nd s that th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in g ra nti ngAp pe lle e s’ mot ion

to 1 9 d is mi s s b a s e d

o nc o ll ate r a l e s to p p e l, an d th at n e it h e r r e s ju d ic ata

n o r c o ll ate r a l e s to p p e l b ar

h er 20 fede ral action. We review de novo a dis trict court’s application of t he principles of claim and issue 1Sheffield’ s amende d fede ral c omplaint does add individual defe ndants not named in her 2 state complaint. Even if

Sheffield we re to a dvance an ar g ument that this render s prec lusion principles inapplica

ble, we w ould never

theless af firm the dismissal of the claims ag ainst the individual defenda

nts beca use Title VI Idoes not provide f or individual liabilit y . Spiegel v. Schulmann , 604 F.3d 72, 79 ( 2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam). 4 1 prec lusion. Bank of N.Y . v. First Mi l l en n i u m, Inc. ,6 07 F .3 d 9 05 , 9 19 (2 d Ci r. 20 10 ). We l oo k to 2 New Y ork law to de termine the pr eclusive e ffe ct in fede ral c ourt of the New York Supreme Court’s 3 decision dismissing Sheffie ld’s first action, and we g ive that decision the same pr eclusive e ffe ct that 4 a New York state court would. See Migra v. W arren City Sc h. Dist. Bd. of Educ. , 465 U.S. 75, 81 5 (1 98 4) ; O ’ Co n nor v. Pierson , 568 F.3d 64, 69 ( 2d Cir. 2009). We may aff irm on any

g round 6 supported by

the re cord. Be al v . S

te rn , 184 F.3d 117, 122 ( 2d Cir. 1999). 7 In N e w Y or k, “ re s ju dic ata

. . . ba rs su c c e ssi ve lit ig atio n [of a ll c la ims ] ba se d u

po n th e same 8 transac tion or series of connec ted t ransa ctions

. . . if: (i) there i s a judg ment on the merits re ndere d 9 by a c ourt of c omp e te nt jur isd ic tio n, and (i i) the pa rt y a g a ins t wh om the do c tr ine is i nv ok e d w a s a 10 party to the previous action, or in privity with a par

ty who was.” People ex rel. Spitzer v. Applied 11 Card Sys., Inc. , 8 94 N. E. 2d 1, 12 (N .Y . 2 00 8) (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mitte d) . N e w Y or

k c ourt s 12 a pp ly a “ pr a g matic ” te st to de te rm ine wh e the r c la ims are pa rt of the same tr ans a c tio n f

or re s ju dic ata 13 purposes, e x amining “ whether the fa cts are rela

ted in time, space , orig in, or motivation, whether they 14 fo rm

a c onve nie nt t

ri a l un it, and

wh e ther th eir tr e atme nt a s a un it c on fo rm s to the pa rt ie s’ 15 expectations or business understa nding or usag e.” Xiao Y

ang Chen v. Fisher , 843 N.E.2d 723, 725 16 (N.Y. 2005) (quoting Restatement (2d) of Judgments § 24). 17 He re , th e re is n o q ue sti on that th e same pa

rt ie s are inv olv e d in

the state and

fe de ra l a c tio ns , 18 and S heff

ield does not contend otherwise. Also not in dispute is the fact that the state c ourt order 2 19 was a

final judg ment. Sheffield r aises two arguments why res judicata does not bar

her later-f

iled5 1 fede ral c laims: first, that the “state c ourt proce edingwas a limit ed proc ee d ing to r eview the 2 termination of [her] employ ment (under either Article 75 or Article 78 of the New York [CP L R] )” 3 in wh ic h She ff

ie ld c ou ld no t have re c ov e re d c omp e ns ator y dama g e s on he r Ti tle VI I cla ims , 4 She ff

i eld Br. 13; and sec ond, that Sheffield r aised c laims in the later fe dera l action that wer e not 5 transac tionally

related to the claims she r aised in state c ourt. We rejec t eac h argument. 6 2. The Nature of the State Court Procee ding 7 Res judicata doe s not bar cla ims in a subsequent lawsuit wher e, in the f i rs t action, the 8 “ pla int if

f [w a s] st atut or ily

or jur isd ic tio na lly

pr e c lud e d f

ro m ob ta ini ngc om pl ete re lie f” on tho se 9 particula

r cla ims. La Duke v . Lyons , 673 N.Y.S.2d 240, 242 (3d De p’t 1998). Sheff ield argues her e 10 that the state c ourt proce edingwas at most a “hy brid” Article 75/Article 78 pr ocee ding in whic h she 11 cou ld not

have ob ta ine d c omp le te re lie f o n h e r T itl e VI Ic la im. F o r th e f o ll o w in g r easons, we 12 disag ree . 13 Article 78 pr ocee dings a re “ used to c halleng e action (or inaction) by ag encie s and off

icer s 14 of state a

nd local g overnme nt.” Vince nt C. Ale xa n d e r , M c Kin

n e y ’ s C. P. L

. R. Pr actice Commentaries 15 § 7 80 1:1 (2 00 8) ; s e e a ls o Le v in e v . B d

. o f E d uc. , 589 N.Y.S.2d 181, 183 (2d De p’t 1992). Any 16 dama ges awarde d in Article 78 proc eeding s “must be incidental to the pr imary relief soug ht by 17 pe tit ion e r” and

mus t be “ su c h as [the pe tit ion e r co uld have re c ov e re d in a se pa ra te a c tio n] a g a ins t 18 the same body or officer in its or hi s officia l capa city .” N.Y. C.P.L .R. § 7806. Here , the damag es 19 Sheffield soug ht for Appe llees’ a lleg ed violati o n o f T itle VI Iwer e not incidental to the r elief she 20 could have rec eived in a pur e Ar ticle 78 proc eeding , and it was on this basis t h at J u d g e F ox 21 deter

mined res judic ata to be inapplicable to bar Sheffield’ s later law suit. Cf. Colon v . Co ug hli n , 22 58 F.3d 865, 870 n.3 ( 2d Cir. 1995) (“[C] laim pr eclusion g ener ally does not operate to bar a § 19836 1 su it f

oll ow ingthe re so lut ion

of an Ar tic le 78 pr oc e e din g , s inc e the fu ll m e a sure of re lie f a va ila ble 2 in the former

action is not available in the l at t er . ”)

. Simi larly , an ar bitrator’s de cision may

be 3 challeng ed under

N.Y. C.P.L .R. § 7511 in a so-ca lled “Ar ticle 75” proce eding

. Se e Dy e v . N. Y . Ci ty 4 Transit

Auth. , 4 42 N. E. 2d 12 71 , 127 1 (19 82 ) (“ c ha lle ng e to t he arb itr ator ’s awa

rd on the me ri ts” is 5 “not ava ilable” unde r Article 7 8 , an d m u s t b e made pursuant to C.P.L .R. § 7511). Article 75 6 proce eding s are also narr owly ci rc u m s cr i b ed and a

state cour

t conductingone does not have the 7 power

to affor d relief

based upon a

plenar y T i t l e VI Iclaim see king da mag es for

rac ial 8 dis cr i mination. See B ottini v. Sadore Mgmt. Corp. , 7 64 F .2 d 1 16 , 1 21 (2 d Ci r. 19 85 ). Thus , 9 Sheffield c oncludes that, beca use the state court could not a ffor d her the relief she soug ht whether 10 c on du c tin gan A rt ic le 75 or Ar tic le 78 pr oc e e din g , re s jud ic ata c ann ot ba r su bs e qu e nt fe de ra l T itl e 11 VI Ic la ims

. 12 We rejec t Sheffield’s argume nt beca use, upon an e x amination of Sheff ield’s state c ourt 13 petition and the manner in which the state c ourt adjudicated it, it is evident that Sheffield br oug ht 14 a “hy

brid” action encompa ssing an Article 75 petition, a n Article 78 pe tition, and a plena ry action 15 fo r d ama g e s a lle g ingvio latio ns of Ti tle VI Iand

de fa matio n, and that th e state c ourt a dju dic ate d it 16 as s u ch

. See P onterio v. Kaye , N o . 0 6 Ci v . 6 2 8 9 H B , 2 0 0 7 WL 1 4 1 0 5 3 , at * 7 ( S. D

. N

. Y

. Jan . 2 2, 17 20 07 ); Umhey v. County of Orange , 9 57 F . Su pp . 5 25 , 5 27 -2 8 ( S.D .N .Y . 1 99 7) ; Phillips v. City of 18 Ne w York, 8 84 N. Y. S.2 d 3 69 , 3 71 n. 2 ( 1s t D e p’ t 20 09 ); Kap e ll v

. Inc. Vi ll. of Gre e np or t , 881 19 N.Y.S.2d 469, 470 (2d De p’t 2009). 20 Sheffield’ s state petition, filed on May 16, 2006, soug ht three f

orms of re lief: (1) r eview of 2 1 the ar

b it r ati o np r o c e e d in g“ p ur s u an t t o CP L R 7 5 1 0 ” ; ( 2 ) “ f u ll r e in s tate me n t o f

e mp lo y me n t” and 22 “ [b]a c k p ay

wi th i nte re st” ; and (3 ) $75 ,0 00 in c omp e ns ator y and punit ive dama g e s f

or “ se ve re pa inShe ff ie ld c on te nd s th at th e state c ourt c omm itt e d le g a l e rr or s in so do ing . Wh e the r i t 3 did or no t, “ [t]he po lic y

a g a ins t r e lit ig atio n o f a dju dic ate d d isp ute s is str on ge no ug h g e ne ra lly to bar a second a ction even where further investigation of the law or f acts indicates that the controve rsy

has bee n err oneously

decide d, whether

due to over sight by

the par ties or er ror by the courts.” Re ill

yv . R e id , 3 79 N. E. 2d

17 2, 17 5 ( 19 78 ). As the dis tr ic t c ourt e xpla ine d in

its opinion, the proper c ourse wa s to appea l the state cour t’s decision rather than to see k to restar t the ca se in fede ral c ourt. N. Y. C.P. L .R. § 3 21 1( a ) p ro vid e s, in p e rt ine nt p art : 4 A par

ty m ay m o v e for

judgme nt dismi ssing one or more c auses of a c tio n a sse rt e d a g a ins t hi m on the g ro un d th at: 1. a def ense is founde d upon documentar y evidenc e; or

. . . 5. t h e ca u s e of action may not be maintained be cause of ar bitration and aw ard, c ollatera l estoppel, dischar g e in bankr uptcy , infanc y

or other disability

of the movingparty , pay ment, rele ase, res judicata , statute of limitations, or statute of fra uds; or

. . . 7. the pleadingfails to state a c ause of action . . . . 7 1 and

su ff e ri ng , me nta l anguis h, a dv e rs e e mpl oy me nt i mpa c t, l os s of wa g e s, ha ra ssm e nt r e su lti ngin 2 extreme emotional distress and anguish, [and] c ompensation for hardship and humiliati[ on] before 3 her pe ers.” This third form of re lief wa s sought in conne ction with Sheffield ’s T i t l e VI Iand 4 de f

am at i o n c l a i m s . M o r e o v e r , S h e f f i e l d h e r s e l f a c kn o w l e d g e d b r i n g i n g a T i t l e V I I c l a i m insta te 5 court whe n she moved to voluntar ily discontinue her action there so that this claim might be pursue d 6 in fede ral c ourt. In resolvingSheffield’ s state cour t action, the state court: (1) upheld the arbitrator’s 7 decision on Article 7 5 re v i ew; (2) noted that Sheffie ld commence d the ac tion as an Article 78 8 proce edingand dismissed the petition without affordingher the empl o y m ent-re lated re lief she 9 so ug ht; and (3) dism issed Sheffield’ s claim for damag es for defa mation and ra cial discrimination. 3 10 The c ourt dismissed Sheffield ’s entire pe tition pursuant to C .P.L .R §§ 3211(a)( 1), (5) , and (7)

. 4 11 Whil e the state court did not specif ically mention Sheffield’s br oader Title VI Iclaims , which8 1 involved work-r elated a lleg ations of discrimination apar t from the spec if

i c ev ents surrounding 2 Sheffield’ s termination, Sheffield c lear ly prese nted those cla ims to t he cour t and the cour

t’s 3 dis mis sa l of

the e nti re pe tit ion ne c e ssa ri ly inv olv e d the dis mis sa l of the se Ti tle VI Ic la ims a s w e ll. 4 See W

inters v. Lavine , 574 F.2d 46, 61 (2d Cir. 1978) (“[I ]t is e ntirely possible f or a court to consider 5 and re

ject a pa rticular c laim presente d to it without any express discussion of or allusion to that 6 claim.”)

. 7 I t is therefor e cle ar to us that S heff ield commence d a hy

brid action and that the state c ourt 8 treated it as such. Sheffield’ s petition clear ly soug ht money

damag es for

defa mation and violations 9 of Title VI Iin a plenar y action. B eca

use Sheffi el d clearly

prese nted these c laims, which wer e 10 inappropriate for Article 75 or 78 r eview, a nd the s tate court adjudicate d those claims, the state c ourt 11 also treated the ca se as a hy brid Article 75/Ar

ticle 78/plenar

y action, and w e must view it as such 12 for pr eclusion purpose s. The state court was there fore a court of compe tent jurisdiction that had the 13 authority

to awar d the Title VI Irelief Sheffield soug ht. Se e Ap pli e d Car d S y s. , 894 N.E.2d at 12. 14 3. Tr ans a c tio na lly Re late d Cl a ims 15 We further conclude that all the claims Sheffield raised in her fede ral suit wer e “ba sed upon 16 the same tra

nsaction or series of

connec ted transa ctions” pre sented in the state c ourt proce eding

. Id. 17 Sheffield’ s state petition made cla ims “under Titl e VI I ” and a lleg ed discrimination in RCS D’s 18 e mpl oy

men t pr a c tic e s, un e qu a l tr e atme nt o f m ino ri tie s, and a ho sti le wo rk

e nv ir onme nt at RCSD 19 — prec isely

the same bro ad alleg ations made in the fe dera l complaint. That the EEOC letter s 20 attache d to S h ef fi eld’s fe dera l complaint contained “ more spec ific alleg ations of conduc t” by 21 appellee s, Sheffield B r. 33, does not c hang e the fac t that the two complaints asser t c laims that are 22 pa

rt of the s ame “ser ies of

c onne c te d tr ans a c tio ns ” un de r N e w Y or k la w t hat Sh e ff ie ld o ri g ina lly9 1 soug ht to lit igate in the state cour t proce eding s. See X

iao Y ang Chen , 8 43 N. E. 2d

at 72 5. Thus a ll 2 claims asser

ted in the fe dera l action ar e bar red by res judicata. 3 4. Conclusion 4 We have r evi ew ed S h effield’s re maining a rguments and conc lude that they are moot or 5 without merit. For the f oreg oing r easons, we aff

irm the district court’s dismissal o f S heff ield’s 6 complaint on the ground of res judicata. We need not, there fore , addre ss whether collater al estoppel 7 would also bar Shef field’s fe dera l claims. The judg ment of the district court is there fore 8 AFF I RMED. 9 F OR TH E CO UR T: 10 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 11